Thursday, February 25, 2016

RESOLUTION TO THE DISAPPEARING GENIUS END OF THE WORLD DILEMMA

FOLLOWUP TO THE
END OF THE WORLD SCENARIO

In the last post I mentioned how a genius with one of the
highest IQs ever documented has withdrawn from the world to a remote location
in Australia after concluding that general knowledge of the understanding he
has attained, if released, would spell the end of the world as we know it. I
only learned of this when we sent him a summary of our quantum research
findings, and attempted to get an invitation to visit him while I was in
Australia in 2011. Since he didn’t invite me to visit, and he wasn’t specific
about the nature of what he considered to be very dangerous knowledge, I wasn’t
sure to exactly what concept or concepts he was referring.

THE COLLAPSE OF
THE WAVE FUNCTION DELIMMA

Since 2011, I’ve had time to think about it and I have
identified what I think was the probably the knowledge the disappearing genius
was so concerned about. I outlined it in the last post; it was the concern
that, due to the principles of quantum mechanics, the observation of the moment
of the big bang will reduce the wave function of the universe to a single state
in which everything is determined. Then,
as Laplace, Descartes and others have believed, with our knowledge of the
physical laws governing the universe and the initial conditions of the origin
event (the big bang), all the details of the past, present and the future,
however minute or extensive, can be known. This would be a state of total
predetermination, which would rob us of any incentive. Total knowledge of the
past, present and future would destroy the enjoyment of risk taking and
adventure into the unknown. In a finite deterministic universe, a computer
program could print out the entire history of one’s life on the day of birth.
Would anyone want to live in a world like that?

Is this scenario real? Let’s look at some more evidence:

Another
way of understanding what quantum physics has taught us, consistent with Bell’s
Theorem and the Aspect experiment, is: in order to avoid the EPR paradox, we
have to accept the fact that elementary phenomena only become localized phenomena
when they impact irreversibly on receptors. They do not exist like little
baseballs in flight between the source, (e.g. a sub-atomic reaction or an LHC
collision) and reception (observation and measurement), they exist in a state
of multiple probabilities until an observation is complete. John A. Wheeler,
Nobel Prize winning physicist and a student of Einstein’s at Princeton, put
it this way:

“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon
until it is a registered phenomenon.”

Wheeler applied this principle to astronomical
observations and noted that conscious choices made in the present could affect
things in the past, even the very distant past. See his book “At Home in the
Universe” page 126, for the thought experiment that led to the Delated-choice
experiment. He noted that when light from a distant star is bent around a
galaxy acting like a gravity lens, we can determine on which side of the galaxy
a photon passed millions of years ago, by the way we choose to set up our
observation today. This led him to propose a laboratory experiment called the
delayed-choice, double-slit experiment that would prove or disprove the
validity of Bohr’s solution to the EPR paradox, the idea that elementary
phenomena only become localized when they impact irreversibly on receptors, and
that before that they exist in a state of multiple probabilities until an
observation is complete.

Here’s how it
works: A light source is set up to shine on a wall with two slits in it and a
photographic plate is placed on a second wall on the other side of the first
wall from the light source. Photons behave like waves if both slits are open,
and like particles if one slit is closed. This means that whether a photon is a
particle or wave depends on a choice that the physicist makes. Furthermore,
Wheeler thought, if Bohr’s answer to the EPR paradox and the results of
experiments like the Aspect experiment based on Bell’s theorem are correct, and
there is no objective phenomenon until it registers on a receptor, we should be
able to make the choice to open or close a slit any time before the light
impacts the photographic plate and get the same results. Within a few years of
Wheeler’s proposal, two teams of experimental physicists, one in the US and one
in Germany, independently performed the delayed-choice experiment (with photons
and other elementary particles) and the experiment worked, validating the Bohr
solution to the EPR paradox. The delayed-choice experiment also reveals
the fact that time is not what the physical senses lead us to believe it is.

Matter/energy phenomena originating from a source on one
side of the wall with the two slits in it remain in the probabilistic state
described by the Schrӧdinger probabilistic wave function, until the
choice to open or close one of the slits is made, as long as the choice is made
any time between the time the source is turned on, and the wave or particle
impacts on the photographic plate. This leads to
the realization that elementary phenomena, the experimental apparatus and the
conscious choice of the experimenter are all intimately connected parts of the
observation.

This realization lends considerable credence to the idea
that our eventual observation of the origin of the universe will reduce the
entire history of the universe to one deterministic chain of cause and effect
events. Quantum physics tells us that the multiplicity of possibilities that
appear to be open to us now, will be reduced to one predetermined outcome. The
ever-expanding possibilities of many worlds will be reduced to one concrete
finite reality. The absolute knowledge of the nature of the universe will be
ours. But this is not necessarily a good thing, because we will no longer have
any illusion of free will. We will have destroyed the mystery of existence, and
painted ourselves into the corner of absolute knowledge.

RESOLUTION OF
THE RTIRING GENIUS DILEMMA

The good news is that the discovery of gimmel, the third
form of the substance of reality, the part of reality that carries qualities of
consciousness, changes everything. I didn’t mention gimmel in this discussion
until now because we hadn’t discovered gimmel before I went to Australia in
2011. I had discovered through the
application of the calculus of distinctions and Fermat’s Last Theorem why
protons and neutrons are comprised of three quarks, and how to put
consciousness into the equations using the calculus of distinctions, but it
wasn’t until we had defined TRUE units and applied TRUE unit analysis to the
Diophantine equations of the conveyance expression, that the significance of
gimmel became clear.

The complete explanation of how the existence of gimmel changes
things involves understanding and using the mathematical tools of TDVP, including
the calculus of distinctions. A detailed presentation of the calculus of
distinctions is beyond the scope of this blog, but a general description of the
logic involved is not. For readers who want to pursue an understanding of the
calculus of distinctions, a good place to start is with George Spencer Brown’s calculus
of indications in his book “Laws of Form”. A presentation of the basics of the
calculus of distinctions is provided in Appendix D in my book “Transcendental
Physics’, first published in 1997, available now on Amazon.com.

In retrospect, I’ve discovered that I had already touched
upon the solution to the ‘disappearing genius’ dilemma as long ago as 1989, in
my book “Infinite Continuity” published in 1990 (presently out-of-print), but I
didn’t see the full implications of the paradoxes within the current
cosmological paradigm until we discovered gimmel. But let me not get ahead of
the story. In the chapter on Olber’s Paradox and the Red Shift in “Infinite
Continuity”, the calculus of distinctions is used to test the logical
consistency of the accepted resolution of Olber’s paradox* and the red shift in
the current paradigm. The results of the
calculus of distinctions test of the current paradigm for consistency, are
summarized on page 145:

“Our conclusions are, therefore, that relativistic time
dilation and space contraction are valid perceptual distinctions and that the
red shift in light from distant stars cannot be due to motion.”

On page 146, the hypothesis that resolves this
inconsistency is identified: “If radiant energy can travel faster than c, the
speed of light, relative to a stationary observer, then there is no reason that
objects such as very distant stars may not already be moving faster than c
relative to our galaxy. The limitation is in our inability to perceive speeds
greater than c. This does not eliminate, however, the possibility of their
existence. The question becomes: do we exist in an infinitely expanding
universe that, due to our perceptual limitations, appears to be closed, or in a
stable universe that only appears to be expanding?”

At the conclusion of the chapter, on page 148, we find: “If the second hypothesis {the hypothesis
that the universe only appears to be expanding} is correct, current cosmology
is almost completely wrong. There was no “big bang” beginning and the
observational evidence that the universe is expanding is, like the constant speed
for light, purely perceptual… Infinity and infinite continuity may be the
primary features of reality. In this case, beginnings and endings, effects of
relative motion, and quanta of matter and energy, are all illusions created by
the identification of consciousness, as observers, with finite, limited forms.”

If the big-bang expanding universe is an illusion, then
the end of the world scenario of our retiring genius is also an illusion. Is it
possible that the popular big-bang expanding universe is an illusion? My answer
is: Yes, not only is it possible, it is provable.

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL
REALITY

The mathematical/dimensionometric applications of the
calculus of dimensional distinctions, dimensional extrapolation and TRUE unit
analysis that lead to the proof alluded to above have been presented briefly in
earlier posts, and in detail elsewhere in other publications by Neppe and Close,
or Close and Neppe, most of which have been peer reviewed. Those details are
beyond the scope of this discussion, but the overall logic and conclusions are
not.

The ‘collapse of the universal wave function’ dilemma is resolved
with the proof that reality consists of
the interaction of mass, energy and consciousness in nine finite dimensions.
This proof is especially strong, cogent and powerful because it corresponds
with pure number theory, clarifies algebraic geometry and resolves a number of
questions that have puzzled physicists for decades, including the three quark
composition of protons and neutrons, the intrinsic spin of fermions and explanation
of the Cabibbo mixing angle of quarks.

I hope the reader will forgive me for indulging in a
little bit of rhetoric here about the beauty and elegance of the calculus of
distinctions, because this rhetoric is not absolutely necessary or critical to
the discussion at hand. But the beauty of the calculus of distinctions is that
it is the most appropriate mathematical system possible for application to quantized
reality. And when the smallest possible quantum of reality is defined as the
most basic unit of description, all combinatory equations become Diophantine
(i.e. integer equations) and the infinitesimals of Newtonian calculus, that
cause confusion in quantum physics, are gone. The calculus of dimensional
distinctions begins with three dimensions,
exactly where Newtonian calculus begins to become intractable.

In the application of the calculus of distinctions and
dimensional extrapolation we see that extrapolation from the 3S-1t (three
dimensions of space plus one quantum point in the next dimension, the dimension
of a perceptual timeline), is Euclidian, i.e. ‘flat’ as opposed to curved,
whereas a four-dimensional domain (3S-1T), is non-Euclidean, meaning that it has
internal curvature. By moving from 3S-1T to the next set of four mutually orthogonal
dimensions, dimensional extrapolation can be accomplished again with Euclidean
geometry, using the Pythagorean Theorem. It turns out that, consistent with
pure number theory, a new type of number is projected after each set of three
dimensions: real numbers (integers in Diophantine equations) are sufficient for
the first three, but imaginary numbers, i = the square root of – 1, are needed
for the next three, and complex numbers, A + Bi, are needed for the third three.
These nine dimensional domains, each embedded within the next higher
dimensional domain, just as the first three are, appear to be sufficient to
describe all known phenomena observable in 3S-1t, the world of our physical
senses.

This takes care of dimensional domains, where dimensions
are defined as distinctions measureable in terms of variables of extent, - like
space, time and consciousness, but what about distinctions of content, like
mass, energy and information? Einstein’s work made it clear that four-dimensional
physical extent, space-time, has no meaning without content, mass and energy. The
calculus of distinctions makes it clear that the nine dimensional extent has no
meaning without mass, energy and consciousness. When distinctions of mass and energy,
which are equivalent, with their equivalence defined by the equation E = mc2,
are included in the space-time dimensional domain mathematical description of
reality, we have the general theory of relativity, where the curvature of four-dimensional
space time is defined by mass/energy density. With the inclusion of
consciousness, we have TDVP, the theory of space, time, consciousness, mass,
energy, and consciousness.

With this background, we are ready to resolve the
disappearing-genius, universal-wave-function collapse dilemma. From the limited
perspective of 3S-1T, the propagation of light, in a non-Euclidean (curved) nine-dimensional
domain, will cause distant objects to appear to move away from an observer with
velocities that increase with distance. This illusion will be the same
regardless of the observer’s location. This is why the cosmic background energy
is so uniform and appears to be the echo of a big bang. But you may object that
straight-line movement, like the propagation of light, in a symmetric non-Euclidean
(curved) nine-dimensional domain will eventually return to its starting point
in space and time, and that would
mean that the history of the universe would be forever repeating, again destroying
all spontaneity. If so, you are slightly
ahead of me.

Movement in a nine-dimensional ‘hyper-space’ reality is analogous to movement on a
three-dimensional sphere, however, the universe does not consist of empty
space-time. the mass/energy density of distinctions of content cause the dimensional
curvature to vary near massive bodies and objects moving with velocities near light
speed, and even if the effects of non-uniform density might cancel out over the
great distances of an otherwise symmetric universe, quantization, with Heisenberg’s
intrinsic uncertainty, might cause variations to occur that would mean that no
history is ever repeated exactly. In addition, the discovery of gimmel as a
real part of the stable structure of physical reality also proves the point,
because taking any point in the nine-dimensional domain as the space-time point
of origin of the universe as we know it, we find that Hydrogen, Deuterium and
Helium atoms had to already exist, and this means that, as indicated by the
calculus of distinctions test I performed in 1989, the expanding universe is a
perceptual reality, measurable in 3S-1T, but ultimately an illusion.

Our common sense minds, dealing with conceptual reality
constructed from the limited data supplied by our physical senses says: But how
can it appear to be expanding based on physical measurements, if it is not?
This is completely analogous to the arguments of people who did not understand
Einstein’s relativity (and probably still don’t) who said how is it possible
that two observers travelling at a large fraction of the speed of light relative
to each other, can each see the other’s time slowing down? (The clock paradox.)
Einstein’s answer was that there is no contradiction because each observer is
measuring from his inertial frame which is moving relative to the other’s
inertial frame of reference. Thinking that this is an unresolvable paradox arises
from the mistaken idea that there is a universal reference time. While this
appears to be the case with the relative velocities we normally experience, it simply
is not so. Time dilution occurs with even the slightest relative motion, it is
just too small to be noticed or measured with current technology until is a
significant fraction of the speed of light.